Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4015741" data-attributes="member: 54707">That's a very good point and the reason I do not assign experience points based on conquering opponents according to the level of the opponent, but rather to the difficulty of over coming that opponent in the game situation, modified by other factors of course.See my answer to 1) below.Real life doesn't scale "in game terms" and to tell you the truth, I don't think the game should either.And of course I know nobody in real life runs around with a silly "level number" attached to them either, they reach a certain level of competency through personal social, group, and political maneuvers. But I have encountered, in real life, men far lower on the social order in any organized group, let's say an organized criminal gang in this example, who are far more dangerous in reality than a team boss. Small cell terrorists who are personally far more dangerous than their organizational leaders.So level should be no real consideration (other than necessary in-game mechanical ones) for how dangerous an opponent is. Brutality, psychological abnormality, cunning, drive, will, determination, ambition should be. Sneaky, crafty, brutal and vicious low level enforcers can be far more dangerous, and even highly organized and efficient in their own ways and methods of operation, than bosses and body-thugs. As a matter of fact, many times, the higher in level (in respect to any given group association through which they operate) most individuals become the less personally dangerous and willing to engage opponents directly, or even directly involve themselves in dangerous and vicious operations. So, I'm with you, dangerous should definitely not equate to level, even at a mechanical level, and, as in real life, people should be able to engage any particular opponent as to need, and as circumstances warrant, not by some artificial contrivance of "game need" or challenge rating.The same can be said to a certain extent about situational and geopgrhaic encounters (dungeons, adventures, mission scenarios, even training exercises). Some locals have a reputation for being especially dangerous to operate within, but in every locale you have dangerous opponents and harmless opponents and well organized and efficient opponents and incompetent and ineffective opponents. So in truth there are no 20th level dungeons, or first level dungeons, just places where you have especially effective and vicious opponents on average, and places where you have not so effective and not so well-prepared enemies on average. Players and characters should be able to assess such situations and adapt themselves accordingly, no matter what level is artificially affixed to either individual or locale, if they have any experience and foresight at all. And so no place should necessarily be too dangerous (unless they are just completely and helplessly overclassed and/or outgunned) and no opponent too weak if that opponent is properly played, instead of just played as a preconceived and static automaton.As with the interesting location idea I think this is a good start. However, do not in my opinion, map out alliances and working relationships to such a degree that they are not open to flexible variation and open to "situational and interactive awareness."Because A hates B does not mean that a working relationship cannot develop between these two because both have personal reasons to kill X, or promote W. Plus circumstances, rather than just preconceptions, often determine realistic relationships between individuals and groups. As information and intelligence develops over time someone who thought Z was their adversary discovers that Z would actually make a valuable associate, partner, or even potential ally. So open all relationships to adaptation over time. You might want to keep a flow-chart, as if you were tracking cell or organizational links, and then allow it to alter over time in interesting ways in order to track changes in developmental progression.You might also have sub-categorical notations on political, financial, social, religious professional, and personal relations in order to establish interesting sub-plots and themes and adventure/mission probabilities. You might also want to encourage various players to keep such "apparent relationship charts" so that they can take note son developing circumstances and even devise their own operations and scenarios based upon what they know, or have discovered. My players often develop their own infiltration operations, undercover ops, or recon missions based upon what they have discovered through their own Intel gathering. And of course Intel gathering is really the art of establishing, both overt and covert, relationships with those who have information of a valuable nature to share. But in any case good Intel is a constantly shifting set of relationship parameters. For instance A might be allied to C for financial and political reasons, but because of a personal and/or professional matter, thus links become overtly or covertly strained or even shattered. Setting off a whole new chain of interesting in-game events.I completely agree here. Much of what is lacking in many settings is the sense of realism and of real causes and of real relationships and enterprises, rather than mechanical and artificially contrived ones based upon mere "structural" character and milieu considerations. In other words the character should be far more than just an wooden and even petty "magical mask" that the player assumes, but rather the way in which the character interacts with his imaginary world should allow "player seepage" into that world, so that the player can explore things about their own strengths and weaknesses through the character.We play adventure paths too by the way, but, they are not static and dissociated from the world in which they exist and operate, and we also play "sandbox" as you have basically outlined the parameters here. With us it is pretty easy because, first comes the world) - which is basically our real world, so it is easy to create both semi-historical and mythological campaign lines, secondly the player) - because to me the game is about the player first and foremost, the character secondly, and not the other way around, thirdly the campaign or quest) - as a focal point for individual or goal activity and to set a common objective or set of objectives, and lastly the adventure or mission scenario) - the actual specific objective to be met.Some players are free to move so far through a particular scenario or adventure, then leave off of that and go on to something else, or finish what they started initially, and whereas not all paths converge nor are all adventures related one to another, many are. And sometimes players are forced off an adventure, through circumstances beyond their control, because in the middle of an operation something more important develops on another battlefield or at another location.I also allow villains, NPCs, characters from other parties, monsters and what not, that might normally be associated with another set of circumstances or another location, more or less open movement between scenarios and locales. Monsters and NPCs and others are not necessarily tied to static locations or particular treasures or singular causes, but are themselves fluid in the way they relate to the world, as are the players and the characters they play.So in my opinion fluidity and realism enhance in-game experiences and make for better role play and situational development.That style of play is also more like real life and far more interesting, useful, and fun than mere imaginary escapism.Anywho, good luck.</blockquote>

Verification